Taboo and Euphemism in the Religious Language

• Autorzy: Mihaela Mocanu
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We propose in this paper to review the main religious taboos specific to the religious language and the description of the pragmatic valences that the euphemistic expression manifests in the religious communication. We use the "linguistic taboo" when referring to terms, syntagms, phrases, etc. whose utterance is forbidden within a certain linguistic community. Manifested essentially by prohibitions and restrictions, the taboo was mainly paired with religious prohibitions, although the origin of the taboo phenomena predates any religion. The sacred taboos are traditional taboos that have accompanied the human civilization since its beginnings, and which, in one form or another, exist in all cultures of the world, constituting anthropological universal elements. Whereas the pragmatic purpose of euphemistic speech was originally to attenuate the impact that the message could have had upon the interlocutor, the analysis of the contemporary religious discourse demonstrated that the euphemisms acquires new pragmatic dimensions related to the desire to conceal the negative social aspects and deficiencies in order to promote a positive image of reality. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Religion

PL

Religia

• Czasopismo: International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences (ILSHS)
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 75
• Strony: 1--9

Twórcy

autor

Mihaela Mocanu

• Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, România

Bibliografia

• F. Sigmund, Totem and taboo, revised translation, preface and notes by Leonard Gavriliu, Mediarex Publishing House, (1996).
• D.P. Chamizo, Linguistic interdiction: Its status quaestionis and possible future research lines, Language Sciences. 31(4) (2009) 428-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.langsci.2007.09.006
• C. Eugen, Metaphorical Creation in Language, in: Dacoromania, new series, V-VI, 2000-2001, Cluj-Napoca.
• B. Kate, Taboo, Euphemism and Political Correctness, in: Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Elsevier, (2006).
• J. Roman, Essais de linguistique générale, Éditions de Minuit, Paris, (1963).
• C. Gheorghe, Refections on the Current Church Language, Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, (1997).
• R. Zafiu, Archaism and Innovation in Religious Language, in: Stylistic Diversity in Current Romanian Language, University Publishing House, Bucharest, (2001).
• G. Alexandru, The Names in the Bible, in: Cultural Romanian nr. 9/(2008).
• G. Charles, Le tabou linguistique: limites dʼune explication, în: Etudes de linguistique generale et de linguistique latine, Societe pour l̕ Information Grammaticale, 1987, Paris. DOI: 10.2143/bsl.90.1.2002528
• S. Lavinia, Another Kind of NOT to Say: euphemism and disphemism in Romance languages, Ștefan cel Mare, Publishing House, Suceava, (2011).
• B. Emil, Old/Ancient and Modern Euphemisms, in ch. Vocabulary and Culture, in Problemes of General Linguistics, vol. I, Universitas Publishing House, Bucharest, (2000).
• D. Ovidiu, Parofonic Euphemism, in: Studies of Romanian Language in the Memory of Professor Radu Sp. Popescu, Universitaria Publishing House, Craiova, (2008).
• DEX =Ion Coteanu, Luiza Seche, Mircea Seche (coord. ), Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, (1975).
• DN = Florin Marcu and Const. Maneca, Dictionary of Neologisms, Academy Publishing House, Bucharest, (1986).
• DSL = Angela-Bidu Vranceanu et alii, Dictionary of Language Sciences, Nemira Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p.205.
• NODEX = The New Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language, Litera International Publishing House, (2002).
• Information on http: /patriarhia. ro.
• Information on http: /ziarullumina. ro.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.75.1